Search results

The case relates to eight Guantanamo detainees who challenged the determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) that they are “enemy combatants”. The case comprises the petitions of Haji Bismullah on the one hand, and of Huzaifa Parhat and six other men on the other.

The Court of Appeals ruled that that, in order to perform a meaningful review of the CSRT determination, it must have access to the information that was available to the CSRT as well. The Court of Appeals considered that these are the “reasonably available information in the possession of the U.S. Government”, without, however, hindering the Government’s ability to subject highly sensitive information to a protective order (meaning that the inspection of available information should be allowed to the detainees counsel with the exception of certain highly sensitive information, which will be available to the Court only).

The Accused were members of the Civil Defense Forces of Sierra Leone, fighting the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) and AFRC (Armed Forces Revolutionary Council) rebels in an effort to restore the democratically elected President Kabbah who had been ousted following a coup. Their activities, however, did not always target enemy forces; large numbers of civilians, including young children and women were made the object of brutal attacks, often by machetes.

Fofana and Kondewa were convicted by Trial Chamber I for 4 counts of war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, pillage and collective punishment. Kondewa was additionally convicted for recruitment of child soldiers. The Trial Chamber, in determining sentencing, took into account the gravity of the offences and the role of the Accused. In particular, the Trial Chamber considered it a mitigating circumstance that the Accused had engaged in the conflict out of a sense of duty in order to protect civilians, and had pursued a legitimate and justifiable purpose of returning former President Kabbah to power. Consequently, Fofana was sentenced to 6 years in prison and Kondewa to 8 years.

In 1994, an armed conflict between the Rwandese government forces and the Rwandese Patriotic Front and the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsis claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens in Rwanda and the elimination of approximately 75% of the Tutsi population.

Joseph Mpambara was a member of the interahamwe militia who fled Rwanda for Kenya and finally the Netherlands after 1994. He is charged with having murder, rape, kidnapping, hostage taking and torture against several Tutsi individuals including young children who were hacked with machetes after being forced out of an ambulance with their mother. Since the Accused is a non-Dutch national and the crimes with which he is charged did not occur on Dutch territory and did not implicate Dutch nationals in any way, the question of jurisdiction arose.

In the present decision, the Court of Appeal of The Hague confirmed the decision of the District Court of The Hague that the Dutch courts have no jurisdiction over the crime of genocide allegedly commited by the Accused. This does not, however, bar prosecution of the Accused for war crimes and torture. 

During the Vietnam War in the 1960’s, the United States sprayed toxic herbicides in areas of South Vietnam. Herbicides were considered effective in meeting important US and allied military objectives in Vietnam. Vietnamese nationals and a Vietnamese organisation representing the victims of Agent Orange brought a case before US court against several US-registered companies that were deployed by the United States military during the Vietnam War. They claimed to have suffered injuries as a result of their exposure to and contamination by these herbicides.

The Plaintiffs brought the case to court under the Alien Tort Statute, which grants the district courts jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien claiming damages for a tort committed in violation of international law or a treaty of the United States. They also asserted claims grounded in domestic tort law. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of environmental abatement, clean-up, and disgorgement of profits.

The District court determined that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate an alleged violation of international law because Agent Orange (toxic herbicide) was used to protect United States troops against ambush and not as a weapon of war against human populations. On 22 February 2008, the Court of Appeals confirmed this decision.

In one of the first suits filed before the US courts challenging the US practice of 'extraordinary rendition', Syrian-born Canadian national Maher Arar lodged a complaint in January 2004 arguing that his civil rights had been violated. In 2002, Arar was detained by immigration officials at a New York airport while travelling home to Canada from Tunisia. Following a period of solitary confinement, Arar was deported to Syria where he was allegedly tortured before making false admissions of terrorist activity.

On 16 February 2006, the US District Court dismissed Arar’s claims, finding that national security and foreign policy considerations prevented the Court from holding US officials liable, even if the ‘extraordinary rendition’ violated international treaty obligations or customary law. 

The US District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. It held that adjudicating Arar’s claims would interfere with national security and foreign policy. In his partial dissent, Judge Sack found that this provides federal officials with licence to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity”. The Court of Appeals also found that as a foreign national, Arar had no constitutional due process rights.